certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 021624. Argued March 24, 2004Decided June 14, 2004

Petitioner school district requires each elementary school class to recite daily the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent Newdows daughter participates in this exercise. Newdow, an atheist, filed suit alleging that, because the Pledge contains the words under God, it constitutes religious indoctrination of his child in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. He also alleged that he had standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as next friend. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Pledge is constitutional, and the District Court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct his daughters religious education, and that the school districts policy violates the Establishment Clause. Sandra Banning, the childs mother, then filed a motion to intervene or dismiss, declaring,
inter alia
, that she had exclusive legal custody under a state-court order and that, as her daughters sole legal custodian, she felt it was not in the childs interest to be a party to Newdows suit. Concluding that Bannings sole legal custody did not deprive Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child, the Ninth Circuit held that, under California law, Newdow retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if they contradict her mothers, as well as the right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests.

Held:
Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school districts policy in federal court. The standing requirement derives from the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary.
E.g., Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737. The Courts prudential standing jurisprudence encompasses,
inter alia
, the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights,
e.g., id.,
at 751, and the Court generally declines to intervene in domestic relations, a traditional subject of state law,
e.g., In re Burrus,
136 U. S. 586. The extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until Banning filed her motion to intervene or dismiss, declaring that the family court order gave her 
sole
legal custody and authorized her to exercise legal control  over her daughter. Newdows argument that he nevertheless retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughter his beliefs fails because his rights cannot be viewed in isolation. This case also concerns Bannings rights under the custody orders and, most important, their daughters interests upon finding herself at the center of a highly public debate. Newdows standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. Their interests are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict. Newdows parental status is defined by state law, and this Court customarily defers to the state-law interpretations of the regional federal court, see
Bishop
v.
Wood,
426 U. S. 341. Here, the Ninth Circuit relied on intermediate state appellate cases recognizing the right of each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, to impart to the child his or her religious perspective. Nothing that either Banning or the school board has done, however, impairs Newdows right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, he requests the more ambitious relief of forestalling his daughters exposure to religious ideas endorsed by her mother, who wields a form of veto power, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the family courts order has deprived Newdow of that status. Pp. 714.

328 F. 3d 466, reversed.

Stevens, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg,
and
Breyer
, JJ., joined.
Rehnquist, C. J.,
filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which
OConnor, J.,
joined, and in which
Thomas, J.,
joined as to Part I.
OConnor, J.,
and
Thomas, J.,
filed opinions concurring in the judgment.
Scalia, J.,
took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.

Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words under God, he views the School Districts policy as a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the
First Amendment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow. In light of the obvious importance of that decision, we granted certiorari to review the
First Amendment issue and, preliminarily, the question whether Newdow has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We conclude that Newdow lacks standing and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals decision.

I

The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country,
Texas
v.
Johnson,
491 U. S. 397,
405 (1989)
, and of its proud traditions of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations,
id
., at 437 (
Stevens
, J., dissenting). As its history illustrates, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.

The Pledge of Allegiance was initially conceived more than a century ago. As part of the nationwide interest in commemorating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus discovery of America, a widely circulated national magazine for youth proposed in 1892 that pupils recite the following affirmation: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
1
In the 1920s, the National Flag Conferences replaced the phrase my Flag with the flag of the United States of America.

In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress adopted, and the President signed, a Joint Resolution codifying a detailed set of rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America. Chapter 435,
56Stat.
377. Section 7 of this codification provided in full:

That the pledge of allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart; extending the right hand, palm upward, toward the flag at the words to the flag and holding this position until the end, when the hand drops to the side. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.
Id
., at 380.

This resolution, which marked the first appearance of the Pledge of Allegiance in positive law, confirmed the importance of the flag as a symbol of our Nations indivisibility and commitment to the concept of liberty.

Congress revisited the Pledge of Allegiance 12 years later when it amended the text to add the words under God. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297,
68Stat.
249. The House Report that accompanied the legislation observed that, [f]rom the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2 (1954). The resulting text is the Pledge as we know it today: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

II

Under California law, every public elementary school must begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that [t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy this requirement.
Ibid
. The Elk Grove Unified School District has implemented the state law by requiring that [e]ach elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.
2
Consistent with our case law, the School District permits students who object on religious grounds to abstain from the recitation. See
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
.

In March 2000, Newdow filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the State of California, and the Elk Grove Unified School District and its superintendent.
3
App. 24. At the time of filing, Newdows daughter was enrolled in kindergarten in the Elk Grove Unified School District and participated in the daily recitation of the Pledge. Styled as a mandamus action, the complaint explains that Newdow is an atheist who was ordained more than 20 years ago in a ministry that espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology.
Id
., at 42, ¶ 53. The complaint seeks a declaration that the 1954 Acts addition of the words under God violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution,
4
as well as an injunction against the School Districts policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge.
Id
., at 42. It alleges that Newdow has standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as next friend.
Id
., at 26, 56.

The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, whose brief findings and recommendation concluded, the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Id
., at 79. The District Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 97. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and Newdows standing.

In its first opinion the appeals court unanimously held that Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow I)
. That holding sustained Newdows standing to challenge not only the policy of the School District, where his daughter still is enrolled, but also the 1954 Act of Congress that had amended the Pledge, because his  injury in fact  was  fairly traceable  to its enactment.
Id
., at 603605. On the merits, over the dissent of one judge, the court held that both the 1954 Act and the School Districts policy violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.
Id
., at 612.

After the Court of Appeals initial opinion was announced, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdows daughter, filed a motion for leave to intervene, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. App. 82. She declared that although she and Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter, a state-court order granted her exclusive legal custody of the child, including the sole right to represent [the daughters] legal interests and make all decision[s] about her education and welfare.
Id
., at 82, ¶¶ 23. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God.
Id
., at 83, ¶ 4. Banning expressed the belief that her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed, because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her fathers atheist views.
Id
., at 85, ¶ 10. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughters sole legal custodian, that it was not in the childs interest to be a party to Newdows lawsuit.
Id
., at 86. On September 25, 2002, the California Superior Court entered an order enjoining Newdow from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her next friend. That order did not purport to answer the question of Newdows Article III standing. See
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500, 502 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow II)
.

In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdows standing in light of Bannings motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that the grant of sole legal custody to Banning did not deprive Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.
Id
., at 502503. The court held that under California law Newdow retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradict the mothers, and that Bannings objections as sole legal custodian do not defeat Newdows right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests.
Id
., at 504505.

On February 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 328 F. 3d 466, 468 (CA9 2003)
(Newdow
III)
. The amended opinion omitted the initial opinions discussion of Newdows standing to challenge the 1954 Act and declined to determine whether Newdow was entitled to declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of that Act.
Id
., at 490. Nine judges dissented from the denial of en banc review.
Id
., at 471, 482. We granted the School Districts petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School Districts policy, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the
First Amendment.
540 U. S. 945 (2003)
.

III

In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.
Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
498 (1975)
. The standing requirement is born partly of  an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government. 
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
750 (1984)
(quoting
Vander Jagt
v.
ONeill
, 699 F. 2d 1166, 11781179 (CADC 1983) (Bork, J.,
concurring)).

The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake. Even in cases concededly within our jurisdiction under Article III, we abide by a series of rules under which [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon [us] for decision.
Ashwander
v.
TVA,
297 U. S. 288,
346 (1936)
(Brandeis, J., concurring). Always we must balance the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction,
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
820 (1976)
, against the deeply rooted commitment not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless adjudication of the constitutional issue is necessary,
Spector Motor Service, Inc.
v.
McLaughlin,
323 U. S. 101,
105 (1944)
. See also
Rescue Army
v.
Municipal Court of Los Angeles,
331 U. S. 549,
568575 (1947)
.

Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an injury in fact that a favorable judgment will redress. See
Lujan,
504 U. S., at 560561. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. See also
Secretary of State of Md.
v.
Joseph H. Munson Co.,
467 U. S. 947,
955956 (1984)
. Without such limitationsclosely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governancethe courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.
Warth
, 422 U. S., at 500.

One of the principal areas in which this Court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that [t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.
In re Burrus,
136 U. S. 586 594 (1890). See also
Mansell
v.
Mansell,
490 U. S. 581,
587 (1989)
([D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law);
Moore
v.
Sims,
442 U. S. 415,
435 (1979)
(Family relations are a traditional area of state concern). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a domestic relations exception that divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689,
703 (1992)
. We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id
., at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue:

This would be so when a case presents difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar. Such might well be the case if a federal suit were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended on a determination of the status of the parties.
Id
., at 705706 (quoting
Colorado River,
424 U. S., at 814).

Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g.
,
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
5

As explained briefly above, the extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until August 5, 2002, when Banning filed her motion for leave to intervene or dismiss the complaint following the Court of Appeals initial decision. At that time, the childs custody was governed by a February 6, 2002, order of the California Superior Court. That order provided that Banning had  
sole
legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of  her daughter.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 502. The order stated that the two parents should  consult with one another on substantial decisions relating to  the childs  psychological and educational needs,  but it authorized Banning to  exercise legal control  if the parents could not reach  mutual agreement. 
Ibid
.

That family court order was the controlling document at the time of the Court of Appeals standing decision. After the Court of Appeals ruled, however, the Superior Court held another conference regarding the childs custody. At a hearing on September 11, 2003, the Superior Court announced that the parents have joint legal custody, but that Banning makes the final decisions if the two … disagree. App. 127128.
6

Newdow contends that despite Bannings final authority, he retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughterfree from governmental interferencethe atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive.
Id
., at 48, ¶ 78. The difficulty with that argument is that Newdows rights, as in many cases touching upon family relations, cannot be viewed in isolation. This case concerns not merely Newdows interest in inculcating his child with his views on religion, but also the rights of the childs mother as a parent generally and under the Superior Court orders specifically. And most important, it implicates the interests of a young child who finds herself at the center of a highly public debate over her custody, the propriety of
a widespread national ritual, and the meaning of our Constitution.

The interests of the affected persons in this case are in many respects antagonistic. Of course, legal disharmony in family relations is not uncommon, and in many instances that disharmony poses no bar to federal-court adjudication of proper federal questions. What makes this case different is that Newdows standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. In marked contrast to our case law on
jus tertii
, see,
e.g.
,
Singleton
v.
Wulff,
428 U. S. 106,
113118 (1976)
(plurality opinion), the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict.
7

Newdows parental status is defined by Californias domestic relations law. Our custom on questions of state law ordinarily is to defer to the interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the State is located. See
Bishop
v.
Wood,
426 U. S. 341,
346347 (1976)
. In this case, the Court of Appeals, which possesses greater familiarity with California law, concluded that state law vests in Newdow a cognizable right to influence his daughters religious upbringing.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 504505. The court based its ruling on two intermediate state appellate cases holding that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the childs religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of a showing that the child will be thereby harmed.
In re Marriage of Murga
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 505, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79, 82 (1980). See also
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 268270, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843, 849850 (1983) (relying on
Murga
to invalidate portion of restraining order barring noncustodial father from engaging children in religious activity or discussion without custodial parents consent). Animated by a conception of family privacy that includes not simply a policy of minimum state intervention but also a presumption of parental autonomy, 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267268, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, the state cases create a zone of private authority within which each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, remains free to impart to the child his or her religious perspective.

Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdows right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, Newdow requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
. He wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion.
Mentry
and
Murga
are concerned with protecting  the fragile, complex interpersonal bonds between child and parent,  142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, and with permitting divorced parents to expose their children to the  diversity of religious experiences [that] is itself a sound stimulant for a child, 
id
., at 265, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 847 (citation omitted). The cases speak not at all to the problem of a parent seeking to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to restrain the acts of a third party. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the Superior Courts order has deprived Newdow of that status.

In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdows right to communicate with his childwhich both California law and the
First Amendment recognizeand his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.
8

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia
took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Notes

1
J. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 18921992, p. 3 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time, the phrase one Nation indivisible had special meaning because the question whether a State could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was unresolved prior to the Civil War. See J. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln 1224 (1964). See also W. Rehnquist, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876, p. 182 (2004).

2
Elk Grove Unified School Districts Policy AR 6115, App. to Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 2a.

3
Newdow also named as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District and its superintendent on the chance that his daughter might one day attend school in that district. App. 48. The Court of Appeals held that Newdow lacks standing to challenge that districts policy because his daughter is not currently a student there. Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 485 (CA9 2003) (Newdow III). Newdow has not challenged that ruling.

4
The
First Amendment provides in relevant part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The Religion Clauses apply to the States by incorporation into the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U. S. 296,
303 (1940)
.

5
Our holding does not rest, as The Chief Justice suggests, see post, at 25, on either the domestic relations exception or the abstention doctrine. Rather, our prudential standing analysis is informed by the variety of contexts in which federal courts decline to intervene because, as Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, contemplated, the suit depend[s] on a determination of the status of the parties, id., at 706. We deemed it appropriate to review the dispute in Palmore because it raise[d] important federal concerns arising from the Constitutions commitment to eradicating discrimination based on race. 466 U. S., at 432. In this case, by contrast, the disputed family law rights are entwined inextricably with the threshold standing inquiry. The Chief Justice in this respect, see post, at 3, misses our point: The merits question undoubtedly transcends the domestic relations issue, but the standing question surely does not.

6
The court confirmed that position in a written order issued January 9, 2004:
The parties will have joint legal custody defined as follows: Ms. Banning will continue to make the final decisions as to the minors health, education, and welfare if the two parties cannot mutually agree. The parties are required to consult with each other on substantial decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of the minor child, including … psychological and educational needs of the minor. If mutual agreement is not reached in these areas, then Ms. Banning may exercise legal control of the minor that is not specifically prohibited or is inconsistent with the physical custody. App. to Reply Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 12a.
Despite the use of the term joint legal custodywhich is defined by California statute, see Cal. Fam. Code Ann. §3003 (West 1994)we see no meaningful distinction for present purposes between the custody order issued February 6, 2002, and the one issued January 9, 2004. Under either order, Newdow has the right to consult on issues relating to the childs education, but Banning possesses what we understand amounts to a tiebreaking vote.

7
There are good and sufficient reasons for th[e] prudential limitation on standing when rights of third parties are implicatedthe avoidance of the adjudication of rights which those not before the Court may not wish to assert, and the assurance that the most effective advocate of the rights at issue is present to champion them. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.,
438 U. S. 59,
80 (1978)
. Banning tells us that her daughter has no objection to the Pledge, and we are mindful in cases such as this that children themselves have constitutionally protectible interests. Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U. S. 205,
243 (1972)
(Douglas, J., dissenting). In a fundamental respect, [i]t is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is at stake. Id., at 245.

8
Newdows complaint and brief cite several additional bases for standing: that Newdow at times has himself attendedand will in the future attendclass with his daughter, App. 49, ¶ 80; that he has considered teaching elementary school students in [the School District], id., at 65, ¶ 120; that he has attended and will continue to attend school board meetings at which the Pledge is routinely recited, id., at 52, ¶ 85; and that the School District uses his tax dollars to implement its Pledge policy, id., at 6265. Even if these arguments suffice to establish Article III standing, they do not respond to our prudential concerns. As for taxpayer standing, Newdow does not reside in or pay taxes to the School District; he alleges that he pays taxes to the District only indirectly through his child support payments to Banning. Brief for Respondent Newdow 49, n. 70. That allegation does not amount to the direct dollars-and-cents injury that our strict taxpayer-standing doctrine requires. Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne,
342 U. S. 429,
434 (1952)
.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.

Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words under God, he views the School Districts policy as a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the
First Amendment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow. In light of the obvious importance of that decision, we granted certiorari to review the
First Amendment issue and, preliminarily, the question whether Newdow has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We conclude that Newdow lacks standing and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals decision.

I

The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country,
Texas
v.
Johnson,
491 U. S. 397,
405 (1989)
, and of its proud traditions of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations,
id
., at 437 (
Stevens
, J., dissenting). As its history illustrates, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.

The Pledge of Allegiance was initially conceived more than a century ago. As part of the nationwide interest in commemorating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus discovery of America, a widely circulated national magazine for youth proposed in 1892 that pupils recite the following affirmation: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
1
In the 1920s, the National Flag Conferences replaced the phrase my Flag with the flag of the United States of America.

In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress adopted, and the President signed, a Joint Resolution codifying a detailed set of rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America. Chapter 435,
56Stat.
377. Section 7 of this codification provided in full:

That the pledge of allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart; extending the right hand, palm upward, toward the flag at the words to the flag and holding this position until the end, when the hand drops to the side. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.
Id
., at 380.

This resolution, which marked the first appearance of the Pledge of Allegiance in positive law, confirmed the importance of the flag as a symbol of our Nations indivisibility and commitment to the concept of liberty.

Congress revisited the Pledge of Allegiance 12 years later when it amended the text to add the words under God. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297,
68Stat.
249. The House Report that accompanied the legislation observed that, [f]rom the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2 (1954). The resulting text is the Pledge as we know it today: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

II

Under California law, every public elementary school must begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that [t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy this requirement.
Ibid
. The Elk Grove Unified School District has implemented the state law by requiring that [e]ach elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.
2
Consistent with our case law, the School District permits students who object on religious grounds to abstain from the recitation. See
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
.

In March 2000, Newdow filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the State of California, and the Elk Grove Unified School District and its superintendent.
3
App. 24. At the time of filing, Newdows daughter was enrolled in kindergarten in the Elk Grove Unified School District and participated in the daily recitation of the Pledge. Styled as a mandamus action, the complaint explains that Newdow is an atheist who was ordained more than 20 years ago in a ministry that espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology.
Id
., at 42, ¶ 53. The complaint seeks a declaration that the 1954 Acts addition of the words under God violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution,
4
as well as an injunction against the School Districts policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge.
Id
., at 42. It alleges that Newdow has standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as next friend.
Id
., at 26, 56.

The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, whose brief findings and recommendation concluded, the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Id
., at 79. The District Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 97. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and Newdows standing.

In its first opinion the appeals court unanimously held that Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow I)
. That holding sustained Newdows standing to challenge not only the policy of the School District, where his daughter still is enrolled, but also the 1954 Act of Congress that had amended the Pledge, because his  injury in fact  was  fairly traceable  to its enactment.
Id
., at 603605. On the merits, over the dissent of one judge, the court held that both the 1954 Act and the School Districts policy violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.
Id
., at 612.

After the Court of Appeals initial opinion was announced, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdows daughter, filed a motion for leave to intervene, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. App. 82. She declared that although she and Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter, a state-court order granted her exclusive legal custody of the child, including the sole right to represent [the daughters] legal interests and make all decision[s] about her education and welfare.
Id
., at 82, ¶¶ 23. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God.
Id
., at 83, ¶ 4. Banning expressed the belief that her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed, because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her fathers atheist views.
Id
., at 85, ¶ 10. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughters sole legal custodian, that it was not in the childs interest to be a party to Newdows lawsuit.
Id
., at 86. On September 25, 2002, the California Superior Court entered an order enjoining Newdow from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her next friend. That order did not purport to answer the question of Newdows Article III standing. See
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500, 502 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow II)
.

In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdows standing in light of Bannings motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that the grant of sole legal custody to Banning did not deprive Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.
Id
., at 502503. The court held that under California law Newdow retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradict the mothers, and that Bannings objections as sole legal custodian do not defeat Newdows right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests.
Id
., at 504505.

On February 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 328 F. 3d 466, 468 (CA9 2003)
(Newdow
III)
. The amended opinion omitted the initial opinions discussion of Newdows standing to challenge the 1954 Act and declined to determine whether Newdow was entitled to declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of that Act.
Id
., at 490. Nine judges dissented from the denial of en banc review.
Id
., at 471, 482. We granted the School Districts petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School Districts policy, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the
First Amendment.
540 U. S. 945 (2003)
.

III

In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.
Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
498 (1975)
. The standing requirement is born partly of  an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government. 
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
750 (1984)
(quoting
Vander Jagt
v.
ONeill
, 699 F. 2d 1166, 11781179 (CADC 1983) (Bork, J.,
concurring)).

The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake. Even in cases concededly within our jurisdiction under Article III, we abide by a series of rules under which [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon [us] for decision.
Ashwander
v.
TVA,
297 U. S. 288,
346 (1936)
(Brandeis, J., concurring). Always we must balance the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction,
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
820 (1976)
, against the deeply rooted commitment not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless adjudication of the constitutional issue is necessary,
Spector Motor Service, Inc.
v.
McLaughlin,
323 U. S. 101,
105 (1944)
. See also
Rescue Army
v.
Municipal Court of Los Angeles,
331 U. S. 549,
568575 (1947)
.

Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an injury in fact that a favorable judgment will redress. See
Lujan,
504 U. S., at 560561. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. See also
Secretary of State of Md.
v.
Joseph H. Munson Co.,
467 U. S. 947,
955956 (1984)
. Without such limitationsclosely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governancethe courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.
Warth
, 422 U. S., at 500.

One of the principal areas in which this Court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that [t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.
In re Burrus,
136 U. S. 586 594 (1890). See also
Mansell
v.
Mansell,
490 U. S. 581,
587 (1989)
([D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law);
Moore
v.
Sims,
442 U. S. 415,
435 (1979)
(Family relations are a traditional area of state concern). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a domestic relations exception that divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689,
703 (1992)
. We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id
., at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue:

This would be so when a case presents difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar. Such might well be the case if a federal suit were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended on a determination of the status of the parties.
Id
., at 705706 (quoting
Colorado River,
424 U. S., at 814).

Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g.
,
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
5

As explained briefly above, the extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until August 5, 2002, when Banning filed her motion for leave to intervene or dismiss the complaint following the Court of Appeals initial decision. At that time, the childs custody was governed by a February 6, 2002, order of the California Superior Court. That order provided that Banning had  
sole
legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of  her daughter.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 502. The order stated that the two parents should  consult with one another on substantial decisions relating to  the childs  psychological and educational needs,  but it authorized Banning to  exercise legal control  if the parents could not reach  mutual agreement. 
Ibid
.

That family court order was the controlling document at the time of the Court of Appeals standing decision. After the Court of Appeals ruled, however, the Superior Court held another conference regarding the childs custody. At a hearing on September 11, 2003, the Superior Court announced that the parents have joint legal custody, but that Banning makes the final decisions if the two … disagree. App. 127128.
6

Newdow contends that despite Bannings final authority, he retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughterfree from governmental interferencethe atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive.
Id
., at 48, ¶ 78. The difficulty with that argument is that Newdows rights, as in many cases touching upon family relations, cannot be viewed in isolation. This case concerns not merely Newdows interest in inculcating his child with his views on religion, but also the rights of the childs mother as a parent generally and under the Superior Court orders specifically. And most important, it implicates the interests of a young child who finds herself at the center of a highly public debate over her custody, the propriety of
a widespread national ritual, and the meaning of our Constitution.

The interests of the affected persons in this case are in many respects antagonistic. Of course, legal disharmony in family relations is not uncommon, and in many instances that disharmony poses no bar to federal-court adjudication of proper federal questions. What makes this case different is that Newdows standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. In marked contrast to our case law on
jus tertii
, see,
e.g.
,
Singleton
v.
Wulff,
428 U. S. 106,
113118 (1976)
(plurality opinion), the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict.
7

Newdows parental status is defined by Californias domestic relations law. Our custom on questions of state law ordinarily is to defer to the interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the State is located. See
Bishop
v.
Wood,
426 U. S. 341,
346347 (1976)
. In this case, the Court of Appeals, which possesses greater familiarity with California law, concluded that state law vests in Newdow a cognizable right to influence his daughters religious upbringing.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 504505. The court based its ruling on two intermediate state appellate cases holding that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the childs religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of a showing that the child will be thereby harmed.
In re Marriage of Murga
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 505, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79, 82 (1980). See also
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 268270, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843, 849850 (1983) (relying on
Murga
to invalidate portion of restraining order barring noncustodial father from engaging children in religious activity or discussion without custodial parents consent). Animated by a conception of family privacy that includes not simply a policy of minimum state intervention but also a presumption of parental autonomy, 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267268, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, the state cases create a zone of private authority within which each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, remains free to impart to the child his or her religious perspective.

Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdows right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, Newdow requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
. He wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion.
Mentry
and
Murga
are concerned with protecting  the fragile, complex interpersonal bonds between child and parent,  142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, and with permitting divorced parents to expose their children to the  diversity of religious experiences [that] is itself a sound stimulant for a child, 
id
., at 265, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 847 (citation omitted). The cases speak not at all to the problem of a parent seeking to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to restrain the acts of a third party. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the Superior Courts order has deprived Newdow of that status.

In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdows right to communicate with his childwhich both California law and the
First Amendment recognizeand his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.
8

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia
took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Notes

1
J. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 18921992, p. 3 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time, the phrase one Nation indivisible had special meaning because the question whether a State could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was unresolved prior to the Civil War. See J. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln 1224 (1964). See also W. Rehnquist, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876, p. 182 (2004).

2
Elk Grove Unified School Districts Policy AR 6115, App. to Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 2a.

3
Newdow also named as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District and its superintendent on the chance that his daughter might one day attend school in that district. App. 48. The Court of Appeals held that Newdow lacks standing to challenge that districts policy because his daughter is not currently a student there. Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 485 (CA9 2003) (Newdow III). Newdow has not challenged that ruling.

4
The
First Amendment provides in relevant part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The Religion Clauses apply to the States by incorporation into the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U. S. 296,
303 (1940)
.

5
Our holding does not rest, as The Chief Justice suggests, see post, at 25, on either the domestic relations exception or the abstention doctrine. Rather, our prudential standing analysis is informed by the variety of contexts in which federal courts decline to intervene because, as Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, contemplated, the suit depend[s] on a determination of the status of the parties, id., at 706. We deemed it appropriate to review the dispute in Palmore because it raise[d] important federal concerns arising from the Constitutions commitment to eradicating discrimination based on race. 466 U. S., at 432. In this case, by contrast, the disputed family law rights are entwined inextricably with the threshold standing inquiry. The Chief Justice in this respect, see post, at 3, misses our point: The merits question undoubtedly transcends the domestic relations issue, but the standing question surely does not.

6
The court confirmed that position in a written order issued January 9, 2004:
The parties will have joint legal custody defined as follows: Ms. Banning will continue to make the final decisions as to the minors health, education, and welfare if the two parties cannot mutually agree. The parties are required to consult with each other on substantial decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of the minor child, including … psychological and educational needs of the minor. If mutual agreement is not reached in these areas, then Ms. Banning may exercise legal control of the minor that is not specifically prohibited or is inconsistent with the physical custody. App. to Reply Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 12a.
Despite the use of the term joint legal custodywhich is defined by California statute, see Cal. Fam. Code Ann. §3003 (West 1994)we see no meaningful distinction for present purposes between the custody order issued February 6, 2002, and the one issued January 9, 2004. Under either order, Newdow has the right to consult on issues relating to the childs education, but Banning possesses what we understand amounts to a tiebreaking vote.

7
There are good and sufficient reasons for th[e] prudential limitation on standing when rights of third parties are implicatedthe avoidance of the adjudication of rights which those not before the Court may not wish to assert, and the assurance that the most effective advocate of the rights at issue is present to champion them. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.,
438 U. S. 59,
80 (1978)
. Banning tells us that her daughter has no objection to the Pledge, and we are mindful in cases such as this that children themselves have constitutionally protectible interests. Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U. S. 205,
243 (1972)
(Douglas, J., dissenting). In a fundamental respect, [i]t is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is at stake. Id., at 245.

8
Newdows complaint and brief cite several additional bases for standing: that Newdow at times has himself attendedand will in the future attendclass with his daughter, App. 49, ¶ 80; that he has considered teaching elementary school students in [the School District], id., at 65, ¶ 120; that he has attended and will continue to attend school board meetings at which the Pledge is routinely recited, id., at 52, ¶ 85; and that the School District uses his tax dollars to implement its Pledge policy, id., at 6265. Even if these arguments suffice to establish Article III standing, they do not respond to our prudential concerns. As for taxpayer standing, Newdow does not reside in or pay taxes to the School District; he alleges that he pays taxes to the District only indirectly through his child support payments to Banning. Brief for Respondent Newdow 49, n. 70. That allegation does not amount to the direct dollars-and-cents injury that our strict taxpayer-standing doctrine requires. Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne,
342 U. S. 429,
434 (1952)
.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.

Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words under God, he views the School Districts policy as a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the
First Amendment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow. In light of the obvious importance of that decision, we granted certiorari to review the
First Amendment issue and, preliminarily, the question whether Newdow has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We conclude that Newdow lacks standing and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals decision.

I

The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country,
Texas
v.
Johnson,
491 U. S. 397,
405 (1989)
, and of its proud traditions of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations,
id
., at 437 (
Stevens
, J., dissenting). As its history illustrates, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.

The Pledge of Allegiance was initially conceived more than a century ago. As part of the nationwide interest in commemorating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus discovery of America, a widely circulated national magazine for youth proposed in 1892 that pupils recite the following affirmation: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
1
In the 1920s, the National Flag Conferences replaced the phrase my Flag with the flag of the United States of America.

In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress adopted, and the President signed, a Joint Resolution codifying a detailed set of rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America. Chapter 435,
56Stat.
377. Section 7 of this codification provided in full:

That the pledge of allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart; extending the right hand, palm upward, toward the flag at the words to the flag and holding this position until the end, when the hand drops to the side. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.
Id
., at 380.

This resolution, which marked the first appearance of the Pledge of Allegiance in positive law, confirmed the importance of the flag as a symbol of our Nations indivisibility and commitment to the concept of liberty.

Congress revisited the Pledge of Allegiance 12 years later when it amended the text to add the words under God. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297,
68Stat.
249. The House Report that accompanied the legislation observed that, [f]rom the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2 (1954). The resulting text is the Pledge as we know it today: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

II

Under California law, every public elementary school must begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that [t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy this requirement.
Ibid
. The Elk Grove Unified School District has implemented the state law by requiring that [e]ach elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.
2
Consistent with our case law, the School District permits students who object on religious grounds to abstain from the recitation. See
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
.

In March 2000, Newdow filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the State of California, and the Elk Grove Unified School District and its superintendent.
3
App. 24. At the time of filing, Newdows daughter was enrolled in kindergarten in the Elk Grove Unified School District and participated in the daily recitation of the Pledge. Styled as a mandamus action, the complaint explains that Newdow is an atheist who was ordained more than 20 years ago in a ministry that espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology.
Id
., at 42, ¶ 53. The complaint seeks a declaration that the 1954 Acts addition of the words under God violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution,
4
as well as an injunction against the School Districts policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge.
Id
., at 42. It alleges that Newdow has standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as next friend.
Id
., at 26, 56.

The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, whose brief findings and recommendation concluded, the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Id
., at 79. The District Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 97. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and Newdows standing.

In its first opinion the appeals court unanimously held that Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow I)
. That holding sustained Newdows standing to challenge not only the policy of the School District, where his daughter still is enrolled, but also the 1954 Act of Congress that had amended the Pledge, because his  injury in fact  was  fairly traceable  to its enactment.
Id
., at 603605. On the merits, over the dissent of one judge, the court held that both the 1954 Act and the School Districts policy violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.
Id
., at 612.

After the Court of Appeals initial opinion was announced, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdows daughter, filed a motion for leave to intervene, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. App. 82. She declared that although she and Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter, a state-court order granted her exclusive legal custody of the child, including the sole right to represent [the daughters] legal interests and make all decision[s] about her education and welfare.
Id
., at 82, ¶¶ 23. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God.
Id
., at 83, ¶ 4. Banning expressed the belief that her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed, because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her fathers atheist views.
Id
., at 85, ¶ 10. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughters sole legal custodian, that it was not in the childs interest to be a party to Newdows lawsuit.
Id
., at 86. On September 25, 2002, the California Superior Court entered an order enjoining Newdow from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her next friend. That order did not purport to answer the question of Newdows Article III standing. See
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500, 502 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow II)
.

In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdows standing in light of Bannings motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that the grant of sole legal custody to Banning did not deprive Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.
Id
., at 502503. The court held that under California law Newdow retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradict the mothers, and that Bannings objections as sole legal custodian do not defeat Newdows right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests.
Id
., at 504505.

On February 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 328 F. 3d 466, 468 (CA9 2003)
(Newdow
III)
. The amended opinion omitted the initial opinions discussion of Newdows standing to challenge the 1954 Act and declined to determine whether Newdow was entitled to declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of that Act.
Id
., at 490. Nine judges dissented from the denial of en banc review.
Id
., at 471, 482. We granted the School Districts petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School Districts policy, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the
First Amendment.
540 U. S. 945 (2003)
.

III

In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.
Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
498 (1975)
. The standing requirement is born partly of  an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government. 
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
750 (1984)
(quoting
Vander Jagt
v.
ONeill
, 699 F. 2d 1166, 11781179 (CADC 1983) (Bork, J.,
concurring)).

The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake. Even in cases concededly within our jurisdiction under Article III, we abide by a series of rules under which [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon [us] for decision.
Ashwander
v.
TVA,
297 U. S. 288,
346 (1936)
(Brandeis, J., concurring). Always we must balance the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction,
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
820 (1976)
, against the deeply rooted commitment not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless adjudication of the constitutional issue is necessary,
Spector Motor Service, Inc.
v.
McLaughlin,
323 U. S. 101,
105 (1944)
. See also
Rescue Army
v.
Municipal Court of Los Angeles,
331 U. S. 549,
568575 (1947)
.

Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an injury in fact that a favorable judgment will redress. See
Lujan,
504 U. S., at 560561. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. See also
Secretary of State of Md.
v.
Joseph H. Munson Co.,
467 U. S. 947,
955956 (1984)
. Without such limitationsclosely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governancethe courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.
Warth
, 422 U. S., at 500.

One of the principal areas in which this Court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that [t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.
In re Burrus,
136 U. S. 586 594 (1890). See also
Mansell
v.
Mansell,
490 U. S. 581,
587 (1989)
([D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law);
Moore
v.
Sims,
442 U. S. 415,
435 (1979)
(Family relations are a traditional area of state concern). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a domestic relations exception that divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689,
703 (1992)
. We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id
., at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue:

This would be so when a case presents difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar. Such might well be the case if a federal suit were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended on a determination of the status of the parties.
Id
., at 705706 (quoting
Colorado River,
424 U. S., at 814).

Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g.
,
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
5

As explained briefly above, the extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until August 5, 2002, when Banning filed her motion for leave to intervene or dismiss the complaint following the Court of Appeals initial decision. At that time, the childs custody was governed by a February 6, 2002, order of the California Superior Court. That order provided that Banning had  
sole
legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of  her daughter.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 502. The order stated that the two parents should  consult with one another on substantial decisions relating to  the childs  psychological and educational needs,  but it authorized Banning to  exercise legal control  if the parents could not reach  mutual agreement. 
Ibid
.

That family court order was the controlling document at the time of the Court of Appeals standing decision. After the Court of Appeals ruled, however, the Superior Court held another conference regarding the childs custody. At a hearing on September 11, 2003, the Superior Court announced that the parents have joint legal custody, but that Banning makes the final decisions if the two … disagree. App. 127128.
6

Newdow contends that despite Bannings final authority, he retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughterfree from governmental interferencethe atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive.
Id
., at 48, ¶ 78. The difficulty with that argument is that Newdows rights, as in many cases touching upon family relations, cannot be viewed in isolation. This case concerns not merely Newdows interest in inculcating his child with his views on religion, but also the rights of the childs mother as a parent generally and under the Superior Court orders specifically. And most important, it implicates the interests of a young child who finds herself at the center of a highly public debate over her custody, the propriety of
a widespread national ritual, and the meaning of our Constitution.

The interests of the affected persons in this case are in many respects antagonistic. Of course, legal disharmony in family relations is not uncommon, and in many instances that disharmony poses no bar to federal-court adjudication of proper federal questions. What makes this case different is that Newdows standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. In marked contrast to our case law on
jus tertii
, see,
e.g.
,
Singleton
v.
Wulff,
428 U. S. 106,
113118 (1976)
(plurality opinion), the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict.
7

Newdows parental status is defined by Californias domestic relations law. Our custom on questions of state law ordinarily is to defer to the interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the State is located. See
Bishop
v.
Wood,
426 U. S. 341,
346347 (1976)
. In this case, the Court of Appeals, which possesses greater familiarity with California law, concluded that state law vests in Newdow a cognizable right to influence his daughters religious upbringing.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 504505. The court based its ruling on two intermediate state appellate cases holding that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the childs religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of a showing that the child will be thereby harmed.
In re Marriage of Murga
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 505, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79, 82 (1980). See also
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 268270, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843, 849850 (1983) (relying on
Murga
to invalidate portion of restraining order barring noncustodial father from engaging children in religious activity or discussion without custodial parents consent). Animated by a conception of family privacy that includes not simply a policy of minimum state intervention but also a presumption of parental autonomy, 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267268, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, the state cases create a zone of private authority within which each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, remains free to impart to the child his or her religious perspective.

Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdows right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, Newdow requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
. He wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion.
Mentry
and
Murga
are concerned with protecting  the fragile, complex interpersonal bonds between child and parent,  142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, and with permitting divorced parents to expose their children to the  diversity of religious experiences [that] is itself a sound stimulant for a child, 
id
., at 265, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 847 (citation omitted). The cases speak not at all to the problem of a parent seeking to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to restrain the acts of a third party. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the Superior Courts order has deprived Newdow of that status.

In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdows right to communicate with his childwhich both California law and the
First Amendment recognizeand his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.
8

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia
took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Notes

1
J. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 18921992, p. 3 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time, the phrase one Nation indivisible had special meaning because the question whether a State could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was unresolved prior to the Civil War. See J. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln 1224 (1964). See also W. Rehnquist, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876, p. 182 (2004).

2
Elk Grove Unified School Districts Policy AR 6115, App. to Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 2a.

3
Newdow also named as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District and its superintendent on the chance that his daughter might one day attend school in that district. App. 48. The Court of Appeals held that Newdow lacks standing to challenge that districts policy because his daughter is not currently a student there. Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 485 (CA9 2003) (Newdow III). Newdow has not challenged that ruling.

4
The
First Amendment provides in relevant part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The Religion Clauses apply to the States by incorporation into the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U. S. 296,
303 (1940)
.

5
Our holding does not rest, as The Chief Justice suggests, see post, at 25, on either the domestic relations exception or the abstention doctrine. Rather, our prudential standing analysis is informed by the variety of contexts in which federal courts decline to intervene because, as Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, contemplated, the suit depend[s] on a determination of the status of the parties, id., at 706. We deemed it appropriate to review the dispute in Palmore because it raise[d] important federal concerns arising from the Constitutions commitment to eradicating discrimination based on race. 466 U. S., at 432. In this case, by contrast, the disputed family law rights are entwined inextricably with the threshold standing inquiry. The Chief Justice in this respect, see post, at 3, misses our point: The merits question undoubtedly transcends the domestic relations issue, but the standing question surely does not.

6
The court confirmed that position in a written order issued January 9, 2004:
The parties will have joint legal custody defined as follows: Ms. Banning will continue to make the final decisions as to the minors health, education, and welfare if the two parties cannot mutually agree. The parties are required to consult with each other on substantial decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of the minor child, including … psychological and educational needs of the minor. If mutual agreement is not reached in these areas, then Ms. Banning may exercise legal control of the minor that is not specifically prohibited or is inconsistent with the physical custody. App. to Reply Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 12a.
Despite the use of the term joint legal custodywhich is defined by California statute, see Cal. Fam. Code Ann. §3003 (West 1994)we see no meaningful distinction for present purposes between the custody order issued February 6, 2002, and the one issued January 9, 2004. Under either order, Newdow has the right to consult on issues relating to the childs education, but Banning possesses what we understand amounts to a tiebreaking vote.

7
There are good and sufficient reasons for th[e] prudential limitation on standing when rights of third parties are implicatedthe avoidance of the adjudication of rights which those not before the Court may not wish to assert, and the assurance that the most effective advocate of the rights at issue is present to champion them. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.,
438 U. S. 59,
80 (1978)
. Banning tells us that her daughter has no objection to the Pledge, and we are mindful in cases such as this that children themselves have constitutionally protectible interests. Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U. S. 205,
243 (1972)
(Douglas, J., dissenting). In a fundamental respect, [i]t is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is at stake. Id., at 245.

8
Newdows complaint and brief cite several additional bases for standing: that Newdow at times has himself attendedand will in the future attendclass with his daughter, App. 49, ¶ 80; that he has considered teaching elementary school students in [the School District], id., at 65, ¶ 120; that he has attended and will continue to attend school board meetings at which the Pledge is routinely recited, id., at 52, ¶ 85; and that the School District uses his tax dollars to implement its Pledge policy, id., at 6265. Even if these arguments suffice to establish Article III standing, they do not respond to our prudential concerns. As for taxpayer standing, Newdow does not reside in or pay taxes to the School District; he alleges that he pays taxes to the District only indirectly through his child support payments to Banning. Brief for Respondent Newdow 49, n. 70. That allegation does not amount to the direct dollars-and-cents injury that our strict taxpayer-standing doctrine requires. Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne,
342 U. S. 429,
434 (1952)
.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.

Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words under God, he views the School Districts policy as a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the
First Amendment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow. In light of the obvious importance of that decision, we granted certiorari to review the
First Amendment issue and, preliminarily, the question whether Newdow has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We conclude that Newdow lacks standing and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals decision.

I

The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country,
Texas
v.
Johnson,
491 U. S. 397,
405 (1989)
, and of its proud traditions of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations,
id
., at 437 (
Stevens
, J., dissenting). As its history illustrates, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.

The Pledge of Allegiance was initially conceived more than a century ago. As part of the nationwide interest in commemorating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus discovery of America, a widely circulated national magazine for youth proposed in 1892 that pupils recite the following affirmation: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
1
In the 1920s, the National Flag Conferences replaced the phrase my Flag with the flag of the United States of America.

In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress adopted, and the President signed, a Joint Resolution codifying a detailed set of rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America. Chapter 435,
56Stat.
377. Section 7 of this codification provided in full:

That the pledge of allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart; extending the right hand, palm upward, toward the flag at the words to the flag and holding this position until the end, when the hand drops to the side. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.
Id
., at 380.

This resolution, which marked the first appearance of the Pledge of Allegiance in positive law, confirmed the importance of the flag as a symbol of our Nations indivisibility and commitment to the concept of liberty.

Congress revisited the Pledge of Allegiance 12 years later when it amended the text to add the words under God. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297,
68Stat.
249. The House Report that accompanied the legislation observed that, [f]rom the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2 (1954). The resulting text is the Pledge as we know it today: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

II

Under California law, every public elementary school must begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that [t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy this requirement.
Ibid
. The Elk Grove Unified School District has implemented the state law by requiring that [e]ach elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.
2
Consistent with our case law, the School District permits students who object on religious grounds to abstain from the recitation. See
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
.

In March 2000, Newdow filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the State of California, and the Elk Grove Unified School District and its superintendent.
3
App. 24. At the time of filing, Newdows daughter was enrolled in kindergarten in the Elk Grove Unified School District and participated in the daily recitation of the Pledge. Styled as a mandamus action, the complaint explains that Newdow is an atheist who was ordained more than 20 years ago in a ministry that espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology.
Id
., at 42, ¶ 53. The complaint seeks a declaration that the 1954 Acts addition of the words under God violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution,
4
as well as an injunction against the School Districts policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge.
Id
., at 42. It alleges that Newdow has standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as next friend.
Id
., at 26, 56.

The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, whose brief findings and recommendation concluded, the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Id
., at 79. The District Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 97. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and Newdows standing.

In its first opinion the appeals court unanimously held that Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow I)
. That holding sustained Newdows standing to challenge not only the policy of the School District, where his daughter still is enrolled, but also the 1954 Act of Congress that had amended the Pledge, because his  injury in fact  was  fairly traceable  to its enactment.
Id
., at 603605. On the merits, over the dissent of one judge, the court held that both the 1954 Act and the School Districts policy violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.
Id
., at 612.

After the Court of Appeals initial opinion was announced, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdows daughter, filed a motion for leave to intervene, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. App. 82. She declared that although she and Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter, a state-court order granted her exclusive legal custody of the child, including the sole right to represent [the daughters] legal interests and make all decision[s] about her education and welfare.
Id
., at 82, ¶¶ 23. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God.
Id
., at 83, ¶ 4. Banning expressed the belief that her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed, because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her fathers atheist views.
Id
., at 85, ¶ 10. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughters sole legal custodian, that it was not in the childs interest to be a party to Newdows lawsuit.
Id
., at 86. On September 25, 2002, the California Superior Court entered an order enjoining Newdow from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her next friend. That order did not purport to answer the question of Newdows Article III standing. See
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500, 502 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow II)
.

In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdows standing in light of Bannings motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that the grant of sole legal custody to Banning did not deprive Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.
Id
., at 502503. The court held that under California law Newdow retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradict the mothers, and that Bannings objections as sole legal custodian do not defeat Newdows right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests.
Id
., at 504505.

On February 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 328 F. 3d 466, 468 (CA9 2003)
(Newdow
III)
. The amended opinion omitted the initial opinions discussion of Newdows standing to challenge the 1954 Act and declined to determine whether Newdow was entitled to declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of that Act.
Id
., at 490. Nine judges dissented from the denial of en banc review.
Id
., at 471, 482. We granted the School Districts petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School Districts policy, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the
First Amendment.
540 U. S. 945 (2003)
.

III

In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.
Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
498 (1975)
. The standing requirement is born partly of  an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government. 
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
750 (1984)
(quoting
Vander Jagt
v.
ONeill
, 699 F. 2d 1166, 11781179 (CADC 1983) (Bork, J.,
concurring)).

The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake. Even in cases concededly within our jurisdiction under Article III, we abide by a series of rules under which [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon [us] for decision.
Ashwander
v.
TVA,
297 U. S. 288,
346 (1936)
(Brandeis, J., concurring). Always we must balance the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction,
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
820 (1976)
, against the deeply rooted commitment not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless adjudication of the constitutional issue is necessary,
Spector Motor Service, Inc.
v.
McLaughlin,
323 U. S. 101,
105 (1944)
. See also
Rescue Army
v.
Municipal Court of Los Angeles,
331 U. S. 549,
568575 (1947)
.

Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an injury in fact that a favorable judgment will redress. See
Lujan,
504 U. S., at 560561. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. See also
Secretary of State of Md.
v.
Joseph H. Munson Co.,
467 U. S. 947,
955956 (1984)
. Without such limitationsclosely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governancethe courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.
Warth
, 422 U. S., at 500.

One of the principal areas in which this Court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that [t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.
In re Burrus,
136 U. S. 586 594 (1890). See also
Mansell
v.
Mansell,
490 U. S. 581,
587 (1989)
([D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law);
Moore
v.
Sims,
442 U. S. 415,
435 (1979)
(Family relations are a traditional area of state concern). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a domestic relations exception that divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689,
703 (1992)
. We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id
., at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue:

This would be so when a case presents difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar. Such might well be the case if a federal suit were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended on a determination of the status of the parties.
Id
., at 705706 (quoting
Colorado River,
424 U. S., at 814).

Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g.
,
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
5

As explained briefly above, the extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until August 5, 2002, when Banning filed her motion for leave to intervene or dismiss the complaint following the Court of Appeals initial decision. At that time, the childs custody was governed by a February 6, 2002, order of the California Superior Court. That order provided that Banning had  
sole
legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of  her daughter.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 502. The order stated that the two parents should  consult with one another on substantial decisions relating to  the childs  psychological and educational needs,  but it authorized Banning to  exercise legal control  if the parents could not reach  mutual agreement. 
Ibid
.

That family court order was the controlling document at the time of the Court of Appeals standing decision. After the Court of Appeals ruled, however, the Superior Court held another conference regarding the childs custody. At a hearing on September 11, 2003, the Superior Court announced that the parents have joint legal custody, but that Banning makes the final decisions if the two … disagree. App. 127128.
6

Newdow contends that despite Bannings final authority, he retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughterfree from governmental interferencethe atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive.
Id
., at 48, ¶ 78. The difficulty with that argument is that Newdows rights, as in many cases touching upon family relations, cannot be viewed in isolation. This case concerns not merely Newdows interest in inculcating his child with his views on religion, but also the rights of the childs mother as a parent generally and under the Superior Court orders specifically. And most important, it implicates the interests of a young child who finds herself at the center of a highly public debate over her custody, the propriety of
a widespread national ritual, and the meaning of our Constitution.

The interests of the affected persons in this case are in many respects antagonistic. Of course, legal disharmony in family relations is not uncommon, and in many instances that disharmony poses no bar to federal-court adjudication of proper federal questions. What makes this case different is that Newdows standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. In marked contrast to our case law on
jus tertii
, see,
e.g.
,
Singleton
v.
Wulff,
428 U. S. 106,
113118 (1976)
(plurality opinion), the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict.
7

Newdows parental status is defined by Californias domestic relations law. Our custom on questions of state law ordinarily is to defer to the interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the State is located. See
Bishop
v.
Wood,
426 U. S. 341,
346347 (1976)
. In this case, the Court of Appeals, which possesses greater familiarity with California law, concluded that state law vests in Newdow a cognizable right to influence his daughters religious upbringing.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 504505. The court based its ruling on two intermediate state appellate cases holding that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the childs religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of a showing that the child will be thereby harmed.
In re Marriage of Murga
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 505, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79, 82 (1980). See also
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 268270, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843, 849850 (1983) (relying on
Murga
to invalidate portion of restraining order barring noncustodial father from engaging children in religious activity or discussion without custodial parents consent). Animated by a conception of family privacy that includes not simply a policy of minimum state intervention but also a presumption of parental autonomy, 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267268, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, the state cases create a zone of private authority within which each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, remains free to impart to the child his or her religious perspective.

Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdows right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, Newdow requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
. He wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion.
Mentry
and
Murga
are concerned with protecting  the fragile, complex interpersonal bonds between child and parent,  142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, and with permitting divorced parents to expose their children to the  diversity of religious experiences [that] is itself a sound stimulant for a child, 
id
., at 265, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 847 (citation omitted). The cases speak not at all to the problem of a parent seeking to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to restrain the acts of a third party. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the Superior Courts order has deprived Newdow of that status.

In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdows right to communicate with his childwhich both California law and the
First Amendment recognizeand his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.
8

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia
took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Notes

1
J. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 18921992, p. 3 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time, the phrase one Nation indivisible had special meaning because the question whether a State could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was unresolved prior to the Civil War. See J. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln 1224 (1964). See also W. Rehnquist, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876, p. 182 (2004).

2
Elk Grove Unified School Districts Policy AR 6115, App. to Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 2a.

3
Newdow also named as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District and its superintendent on the chance that his daughter might one day attend school in that district. App. 48. The Court of Appeals held that Newdow lacks standing to challenge that districts policy because his daughter is not currently a student there. Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 485 (CA9 2003) (Newdow III). Newdow has not challenged that ruling.

4
The
First Amendment provides in relevant part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The Religion Clauses apply to the States by incorporation into the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U. S. 296,
303 (1940)
.

5
Our holding does not rest, as The Chief Justice suggests, see post, at 25, on either the domestic relations exception or the abstention doctrine. Rather, our prudential standing analysis is informed by the variety of contexts in which federal courts decline to intervene because, as Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, contemplated, the suit depend[s] on a determination of the status of the parties, id., at 706. We deemed it appropriate to review the dispute in Palmore because it raise[d] important federal concerns arising from the Constitutions commitment to eradicating discrimination based on race. 466 U. S., at 432. In this case, by contrast, the disputed family law rights are entwined inextricably with the threshold standing inquiry. The Chief Justice in this respect, see post, at 3, misses our point: The merits question undoubtedly transcends the domestic relations issue, but the standing question surely does not.

6
The court confirmed that position in a written order issued January 9, 2004:
The parties will have joint legal custody defined as follows: Ms. Banning will continue to make the final decisions as to the minors health, education, and welfare if the two parties cannot mutually agree. The parties are required to consult with each other on substantial decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of the minor child, including … psychological and educational needs of the minor. If mutual agreement is not reached in these areas, then Ms. Banning may exercise legal control of the minor that is not specifically prohibited or is inconsistent with the physical custody. App. to Reply Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 12a.
Despite the use of the term joint legal custodywhich is defined by California statute, see Cal. Fam. Code Ann. §3003 (West 1994)we see no meaningful distinction for present purposes between the custody order issued February 6, 2002, and the one issued January 9, 2004. Under either order, Newdow has the right to consult on issues relating to the childs education, but Banning possesses what we understand amounts to a tiebreaking vote.

7
There are good and sufficient reasons for th[e] prudential limitation on standing when rights of third parties are implicatedthe avoidance of the adjudication of rights which those not before the Court may not wish to assert, and the assurance that the most effective advocate of the rights at issue is present to champion them. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.,
438 U. S. 59,
80 (1978)
. Banning tells us that her daughter has no objection to the Pledge, and we are mindful in cases such as this that children themselves have constitutionally protectible interests. Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U. S. 205,
243 (1972)
(Douglas, J., dissenting). In a fundamental respect, [i]t is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is at stake. Id., at 245.

8
Newdows complaint and brief cite several additional bases for standing: that Newdow at times has himself attendedand will in the future attendclass with his daughter, App. 49, ¶ 80; that he has considered teaching elementary school students in [the School District], id., at 65, ¶ 120; that he has attended and will continue to attend school board meetings at which the Pledge is routinely recited, id., at 52, ¶ 85; and that the School District uses his tax dollars to implement its Pledge policy, id., at 6265. Even if these arguments suffice to establish Article III standing, they do not respond to our prudential concerns. As for taxpayer standing, Newdow does not reside in or pay taxes to the School District; he alleges that he pays taxes to the District only indirectly through his child support payments to Banning. Brief for Respondent Newdow 49, n. 70. That allegation does not amount to the direct dollars-and-cents injury that our strict taxpayer-standing doctrine requires. Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne,
342 U. S. 429,
434 (1952)
.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.

Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words under God, he views the School Districts policy as a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the
First Amendment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow. In light of the obvious importance of that decision, we granted certiorari to review the
First Amendment issue and, preliminarily, the question whether Newdow has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We conclude that Newdow lacks standing and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals decision.

I

The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country,
Texas
v.
Johnson,
491 U. S. 397,
405 (1989)
, and of its proud traditions of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations,
id
., at 437 (
Stevens
, J., dissenting). As its history illustrates, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.

The Pledge of Allegiance was initially conceived more than a century ago. As part of the nationwide interest in commemorating the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus discovery of America, a widely circulated national magazine for youth proposed in 1892 that pupils recite the following affirmation: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
1
In the 1920s, the National Flag Conferences replaced the phrase my Flag with the flag of the United States of America.

In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress adopted, and the President signed, a Joint Resolution codifying a detailed set of rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America. Chapter 435,
56Stat.
377. Section 7 of this codification provided in full:

That the pledge of allegiance to the flag, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart; extending the right hand, palm upward, toward the flag at the words to the flag and holding this position until the end, when the hand drops to the side. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.
Id
., at 380.

This resolution, which marked the first appearance of the Pledge of Allegiance in positive law, confirmed the importance of the flag as a symbol of our Nations indivisibility and commitment to the concept of liberty.

Congress revisited the Pledge of Allegiance 12 years later when it amended the text to add the words under God. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297,
68Stat.
249. The House Report that accompanied the legislation observed that, [f]rom the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2 (1954). The resulting text is the Pledge as we know it today: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

II

Under California law, every public elementary school must begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that [t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy this requirement.
Ibid
. The Elk Grove Unified School District has implemented the state law by requiring that [e]ach elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.
2
Consistent with our case law, the School District permits students who object on religious grounds to abstain from the recitation. See
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
.

In March 2000, Newdow filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the State of California, and the Elk Grove Unified School District and its superintendent.
3
App. 24. At the time of filing, Newdows daughter was enrolled in kindergarten in the Elk Grove Unified School District and participated in the daily recitation of the Pledge. Styled as a mandamus action, the complaint explains that Newdow is an atheist who was ordained more than 20 years ago in a ministry that espouses the religious philosophy that the true and eternal bonds of righteousness and virtue stem from reason rather than mythology.
Id
., at 42, ¶ 53. The complaint seeks a declaration that the 1954 Acts addition of the words under God violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution,
4
as well as an injunction against the School Districts policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge.
Id
., at 42. It alleges that Newdow has standing to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter as next friend.
Id
., at 26, 56.

The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, whose brief findings and recommendation concluded, the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Id
., at 79. The District Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 97. The Court of Appeals reversed and issued three separate decisions discussing the merits and Newdows standing.

In its first opinion the appeals court unanimously held that Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow I)
. That holding sustained Newdows standing to challenge not only the policy of the School District, where his daughter still is enrolled, but also the 1954 Act of Congress that had amended the Pledge, because his  injury in fact  was  fairly traceable  to its enactment.
Id
., at 603605. On the merits, over the dissent of one judge, the court held that both the 1954 Act and the School Districts policy violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.
Id
., at 612.

After the Court of Appeals initial opinion was announced, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdows daughter, filed a motion for leave to intervene, or alternatively to dismiss the complaint. App. 82. She declared that although she and Newdow shared physical custody of their daughter, a state-court order granted her exclusive legal custody of the child, including the sole right to represent [the daughters] legal interests and make all decision[s] about her education and welfare.
Id
., at 82, ¶¶ 23. Banning further stated that her daughter is a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God.
Id
., at 83, ¶ 4. Banning expressed the belief that her daughter would be harmed if the litigation were permitted to proceed, because others might incorrectly perceive the child as sharing her fathers atheist views.
Id
., at 85, ¶ 10. Banning accordingly concluded, as her daughters sole legal custodian, that it was not in the childs interest to be a party to Newdows lawsuit.
Id
., at 86. On September 25, 2002, the California Superior Court entered an order enjoining Newdow from including his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her next friend. That order did not purport to answer the question of Newdows Article III standing. See
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500, 502 (CA9 2002)
(Newdow II)
.

In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdows standing in light of Bannings motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that the grant of sole legal custody to Banning did not deprive Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.
Id
., at 502503. The court held that under California law Newdow retains the right to expose his child to his particular religious views even if those views contradict the mothers, and that Bannings objections as sole legal custodian do not defeat Newdows right to seek redress for an alleged injury to his own parental interests.
Id
., at 504505.

On February 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an order amending its first opinion and denying rehearing en banc.
Newdow
v.
U. S. Congress
, 328 F. 3d 466, 468 (CA9 2003)
(Newdow
III)
. The amended opinion omitted the initial opinions discussion of Newdows standing to challenge the 1954 Act and declined to determine whether Newdow was entitled to declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of that Act.
Id
., at 490. Nine judges dissented from the denial of en banc review.
Id
., at 471, 482. We granted the School Districts petition for a writ of certiorari to consider two questions: (1) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School Districts policy, and (2) if so, whether the policy offends the
First Amendment.
540 U. S. 945 (2003)
.

III

In every federal case, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.
Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
498 (1975)
. The standing requirement is born partly of  an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government. 
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
750 (1984)
(quoting
Vander Jagt
v.
ONeill
, 699 F. 2d 1166, 11781179 (CADC 1983) (Bork, J.,
concurring)).

The command to guard jealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake. Even in cases concededly within our jurisdiction under Article III, we abide by a series of rules under which [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon [us] for decision.
Ashwander
v.
TVA,
297 U. S. 288,
346 (1936)
(Brandeis, J., concurring). Always we must balance the heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction,
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
820 (1976)
, against the deeply rooted commitment not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless adjudication of the constitutional issue is necessary,
Spector Motor Service, Inc.
v.
McLaughlin,
323 U. S. 101,
105 (1944)
. See also
Rescue Army
v.
Municipal Court of Los Angeles,
331 U. S. 549,
568575 (1947)
.

Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an injury in fact that a favorable judgment will redress. See
Lujan,
504 U. S., at 560561. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
Allen
, 468 U. S., at 751. See also
Secretary of State of Md.
v.
Joseph H. Munson Co.,
467 U. S. 947,
955956 (1984)
. Without such limitationsclosely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governancethe courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.
Warth
, 422 U. S., at 500.

One of the principal areas in which this Court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that [t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.
In re Burrus,
136 U. S. 586 594 (1890). See also
Mansell
v.
Mansell,
490 U. S. 581,
587 (1989)
([D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law);
Moore
v.
Sims,
442 U. S. 415,
435 (1979)
(Family relations are a traditional area of state concern). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a domestic relations exception that divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689,
703 (1992)
. We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id
., at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue:

This would be so when a case presents difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar. Such might well be the case if a federal suit were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended on a determination of the status of the parties.
Id
., at 705706 (quoting
Colorado River,
424 U. S., at 814).

Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g.
,
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
5

As explained briefly above, the extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until August 5, 2002, when Banning filed her motion for leave to intervene or dismiss the complaint following the Court of Appeals initial decision. At that time, the childs custody was governed by a February 6, 2002, order of the California Superior Court. That order provided that Banning had  
sole
legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of  her daughter.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 502. The order stated that the two parents should  consult with one another on substantial decisions relating to  the childs  psychological and educational needs,  but it authorized Banning to  exercise legal control  if the parents could not reach  mutual agreement. 
Ibid
.

That family court order was the controlling document at the time of the Court of Appeals standing decision. After the Court of Appeals ruled, however, the Superior Court held another conference regarding the childs custody. At a hearing on September 11, 2003, the Superior Court announced that the parents have joint legal custody, but that Banning makes the final decisions if the two … disagree. App. 127128.
6

Newdow contends that despite Bannings final authority, he retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughterfree from governmental interferencethe atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive.
Id
., at 48, ¶ 78. The difficulty with that argument is that Newdows rights, as in many cases touching upon family relations, cannot be viewed in isolation. This case concerns not merely Newdows interest in inculcating his child with his views on religion, but also the rights of the childs mother as a parent generally and under the Superior Court orders specifically. And most important, it implicates the interests of a young child who finds herself at the center of a highly public debate over her custody, the propriety of
a widespread national ritual, and the meaning of our Constitution.

The interests of the affected persons in this case are in many respects antagonistic. Of course, legal disharmony in family relations is not uncommon, and in many instances that disharmony poses no bar to federal-court adjudication of proper federal questions. What makes this case different is that Newdows standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. In marked contrast to our case law on
jus tertii
, see,
e.g.
,
Singleton
v.
Wulff,
428 U. S. 106,
113118 (1976)
(plurality opinion), the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict.
7

Newdows parental status is defined by Californias domestic relations law. Our custom on questions of state law ordinarily is to defer to the interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the State is located. See
Bishop
v.
Wood,
426 U. S. 341,
346347 (1976)
. In this case, the Court of Appeals, which possesses greater familiarity with California law, concluded that state law vests in Newdow a cognizable right to influence his daughters religious upbringing.
Newdow II
, 313 F. 3d, at 504505. The court based its ruling on two intermediate state appellate cases holding that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the childs religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of a showing that the child will be thereby harmed.
In re Marriage of Murga
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 505, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79, 82 (1980). See also
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 268270, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843, 849850 (1983) (relying on
Murga
to invalidate portion of restraining order barring noncustodial father from engaging children in religious activity or discussion without custodial parents consent). Animated by a conception of family privacy that includes not simply a policy of minimum state intervention but also a presumption of parental autonomy, 142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267268, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, the state cases create a zone of private authority within which each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, remains free to impart to the child his or her religious perspective.

Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdows right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, Newdow requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
. He wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion.
Mentry
and
Murga
are concerned with protecting  the fragile, complex interpersonal bonds between child and parent,  142 Cal. App. 3d, at 267, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 848, and with permitting divorced parents to expose their children to the  diversity of religious experiences [that] is itself a sound stimulant for a child, 
id
., at 265, 190 Cal. Rptr., at 847 (citation omitted). The cases speak not at all to the problem of a parent seeking to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to restrain the acts of a third party. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the Superior Courts order has deprived Newdow of that status.

In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdows right to communicate with his childwhich both California law and the
First Amendment recognizeand his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.
8

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia
took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Notes

1
J. Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 18921992, p. 3 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time, the phrase one Nation indivisible had special meaning because the question whether a State could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was unresolved prior to the Civil War. See J. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln 1224 (1964). See also W. Rehnquist, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876, p. 182 (2004).

2
Elk Grove Unified School Districts Policy AR 6115, App. to Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 2a.

3
Newdow also named as defendants the Sacramento Unified School District and its superintendent on the chance that his daughter might one day attend school in that district. App. 48. The Court of Appeals held that Newdow lacks standing to challenge that districts policy because his daughter is not currently a student there. Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 485 (CA9 2003) (Newdow III). Newdow has not challenged that ruling.

4
The
First Amendment provides in relevant part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The Religion Clauses apply to the States by incorporation into the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U. S. 296,
303 (1940)
.

5
Our holding does not rest, as The Chief Justice suggests, see post, at 25, on either the domestic relations exception or the abstention doctrine. Rather, our prudential standing analysis is informed by the variety of contexts in which federal courts decline to intervene because, as Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, contemplated, the suit depend[s] on a determination of the status of the parties, id., at 706. We deemed it appropriate to review the dispute in Palmore because it raise[d] important federal concerns arising from the Constitutions commitment to eradicating discrimination based on race. 466 U. S., at 432. In this case, by contrast, the disputed family law rights are entwined inextricably with the threshold standing inquiry. The Chief Justice in this respect, see post, at 3, misses our point: The merits question undoubtedly transcends the domestic relations issue, but the standing question surely does not.

6
The court confirmed that position in a written order issued January 9, 2004:
The parties will have joint legal custody defined as follows: Ms. Banning will continue to make the final decisions as to the minors health, education, and welfare if the two parties cannot mutually agree. The parties are required to consult with each other on substantial decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of the minor child, including … psychological and educational needs of the minor. If mutual agreement is not reached in these areas, then Ms. Banning may exercise legal control of the minor that is not specifically prohibited or is inconsistent with the physical custody. App. to Reply Brief for United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioners 12a.
Despite the use of the term joint legal custodywhich is defined by California statute, see Cal. Fam. Code Ann. §3003 (West 1994)we see no meaningful distinction for present purposes between the custody order issued February 6, 2002, and the one issued January 9, 2004. Under either order, Newdow has the right to consult on issues relating to the childs education, but Banning possesses what we understand amounts to a tiebreaking vote.

7
There are good and sufficient reasons for th[e] prudential limitation on standing when rights of third parties are implicatedthe avoidance of the adjudication of rights which those not before the Court may not wish to assert, and the assurance that the most effective advocate of the rights at issue is present to champion them. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.,
438 U. S. 59,
80 (1978)
. Banning tells us that her daughter has no objection to the Pledge, and we are mindful in cases such as this that children themselves have constitutionally protectible interests. Wisconsin v. Yoder,
406 U. S. 205,
243 (1972)
(Douglas, J., dissenting). In a fundamental respect, [i]t is the future of the student, not the future of the parents, that is at stake. Id., at 245.

8
Newdows complaint and brief cite several additional bases for standing: that Newdow at times has himself attendedand will in the future attendclass with his daughter, App. 49, ¶ 80; that he has considered teaching elementary school students in [the School District], id., at 65, ¶ 120; that he has attended and will continue to attend school board meetings at which the Pledge is routinely recited, id., at 52, ¶ 85; and that the School District uses his tax dollars to implement its Pledge policy, id., at 6265. Even if these arguments suffice to establish Article III standing, they do not respond to our prudential concerns. As for taxpayer standing, Newdow does not reside in or pay taxes to the School District; he alleges that he pays taxes to the District only indirectly through his child support payments to Banning. Brief for Respondent Newdow 49, n. 70. That allegation does not amount to the direct dollars-and-cents injury that our strict taxpayer-standing doctrine requires. Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne,
342 U. S. 429,
434 (1952)
.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 14, 2004]

Chief Justice Rehnquist
, with whom
Justice OConnor
joins, and with whom
Justice Thomas
joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words under God, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

I

The Court correctly notes that our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitutions case or controversy requirement, see
Lujan
v.
Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555,
559562 (1992)
; and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, [
Allen
v.
Wright,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
]. 
Ante,
at 78. To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow (hereinafter respondent) satisfies the requisites of Article III standing. But curiously the Court incorporates criticism of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision into its justification for its novel prudential standing principle. The Court concludes that respondent lacks prudential standing, under its new standing principle, to bring his suit in federal court.

We have, in the past, judicially self-imposed clear limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Warth
v.
Seldin,
422 U. S. 490,
499 (1975)
;
Allen
v.
Wright
,
468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984)
(Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights …). In contrast, here is the Courts new prudential standing principle: [I]t is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiffs claimed standing.
Ante,
at
13. The Court loosely bases this novel prudential standing limitation on the domestic relations exception to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U. S. C. §1332, the abstention doctrine, and criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of California state law, coupled with the prudential standing prohibition on a litigants raising another persons legal rights.

First, the Court relies heavily on
Ankenbrandt
v.
Richards,
504 U. S. 689 (1992)
, in which we discussed both the domestic relations exception and the abstention doctrine. In
Ankenbrandt
, the mother of two children sued her former spouse and his female companion on behalf of the children, alleging physical and sexual abuse of the children. The lower courts declined jurisdiction based on the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and abstention under
Younger
v.
Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971)
. We reversed, concluding that the domestic relations exception only applies when a party seeks to have a district court issue a divorce, alimony, and child custody decree,
Ankenbrandt
, 504 U. S., at 704. We further held that abstention was inappropriate because the status of the domestic relationship ha[d] been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event ha[d] no bearing on the underlying torts alleged,
id.,
at 706.

The Court first cites the domestic relations exception to support its new principle. Then the Court relies on a quote from
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of the abstention doctrine: We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving elements of the domestic relationship,
id.,
at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue.
Ante,
at 910. The Court perfunctorily states: [T]hus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429,
432434 (1984)
, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
Ante,
at 9. That conclusion does not follow from
Ankenbrandt
s
discussion of the domestic relations exception and abstention; even if it did, it would not be applicable in this case because, on the merits, this case presents a substantial federal question that transcends the family law issue to a greater extent than
Palmore
.

The domestic relations exception is not a prudential limitation on our federal jurisdiction. It is a limiting construction of the statute defining federal diversity jurisdiction,
28 U. S. C. §1332, which divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees,
Ankenbrandt,
504
U. S., at 703. This case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, and respondent does not ask this Court to issue a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Instead it involves a substantial federal question about the constitutionality of the School Districts conducting the pledge ceremony, which is the source of our jurisdiction. Therefore, the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction forms no basis for denying standing to respondent.

When we discussed abstention in
Ankenbrandt
, we first noted that [a]bstention rarely should be invoked, because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them. 
Id.
, at 705 (quoting
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v.
United States,
424 U. S. 800,
817 (1976)
).
Ankenbrandt
s discussion of abstention by no means supports the proposition that only in the rare instances where a substantial federal question … transcends or exists apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at
9, should federal courts decide the federal issue. As in
Ankenbrandt
, the status of the domestic relationship has been determined as a matter of state law, and in any event has no bearing on the underlying [constitutional violation] alleged. 504 U. S., at 706. Sandra Banning and respondent now share joint custody of their daughter, respondent retains the right to expose his daughter to his religious views, and the state of their domestic affairs has nothing to do with the underlying constitutional claim. Abstention forms no basis for denying respondent standing.

The Court cites
Palmore
v.
Sidoti,
466 U. S. 429 (1984)
, as an example of the exceptional case where a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue makes the exercise of our jurisdiction appropriate.
Ante,
at 9. In
Palmore
, we granted certiorari to review a child custody decision, and reversed the state courts decision because we found that the effects of racial prejudice resulting from the mothers interracial marriage could not justify granting custody to the father. Contrary to the Courts assertion, the alleged constitutional violation, while clearly involving a substantial federal question, did not transcen[d] or exis[t] apart from the family law issue,
ante,
at 9; it had everything to do with the domestic relationship[w]e granted certiorari to review a
judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child
, 466 U. S., at 430 (emphasis added). Under the Courts discussion today, it appears that we should have stayed out of the domestic dispute in
Palmore
no matter how constitutionally offensive the result would have been.

Finally, it seems the Court bases its new prudential standing principle, in part, on criticisms of the Court of Appeals construction of state law, coupled with the prudential principle prohibiting third-party standing. In the Court of Appeals original opinion, it held unanimously that respondent satisfied the Article III standing requirements, stating respondent has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the education of his daughter.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002). After Banning moved for leave to intervene, the Court of Appeals reexamined respondents standing to determine whether the parents court-ordered custodial arrangement altered respondents standing.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress
, 313 F. 3d 500 (CA9 2002). The court examined whether respondent could assert an injury in fact by asking whether, under California law, noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.
1
Id.
, at 504. The Court of Appeals again unanimously concluded that the respondent satisfied Article III standing, despite the custody order, because he retained sufficient parental rights under California law.
Id.,
at 504505 (citing
In re Marriage of
Murga
v.
Peterson
, 103 Cal. App. 3d 498, 163 Cal. Rptr. 79 (1980);
In re Marriage of Mentry
, 142 Cal. App. 3d 260, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 (1983)).

The Court, contrary to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California case law, concludes that respondent requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in
Mentry
and
Murga
 because he seeks to restrain the act of a third party outside the parent-child sphere.
Ante,
at 13. The Court then mischaracterizes respondents alleged interest based on the Courts
de novo
construction of California law.

The correct characterization of respondents interest rests on the interpretation of state law. As the Court recognizes,
ante,
at 11, we have a settled and firm policy of deferring to regional courts of appeals in matters that involve the construction of state law.
Bowen
v.
Massachusetts,
487 U. S. 879,
908 (1988)
. We do so not only to render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect, but also to reflect our belief that district courts and courts of appeals are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States.
Brockett
v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc.,
472 U. S. 491,
500 (1985)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast to the Court, I would defer to the Court of Appeals interpretation of California law because it is our settled policy to do so, and because I think that the Court of Appeals has the better reading of
Murga, supra,
and
Mentry
, supra.

The Court does not take issue with the fact that, under California law, respondent retains a right to influence his daughters religious upbringing and to expose her to his views. But it relies on Bannings view of the merits of this case to diminish respondents interest, stating that the respondent wishes to forestall his daughters exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. Ante,
at
13. As alleged by respondent and as recognized by the Court of Appeals, respondent wishes to enjoin the School District from endorsing a form of religion inconsistent with his own views because he has a right to expose his daughter to those views without the States placing its
imprimatur
on a particular religion. Under the Court of Appeals construction of California law, Bannings veto power does not override respondents right to challenge the pledge ceremony.

The Court concludes that the California cases do not stand for the proposition that [respondent] has a right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion.
Ibid
. Surely, under California case law and the current custody order, respondent may not tell Banning what she may say to their child respecting religion, and respondent does not seek to. Just as surely, respondent cannot name his daughter as a party to a lawsuit against Bannings wishes. But his claim is different: Respondent does not seek to tell just anyone what he or she may say to his daughter, and he does not seek to vindicate solely her rights.

Respondent asserts that the School Districts pledge ceremony infringes his right under California law to expose his daughter to his religious views. While she is intimately associated with the source of respondents standing (the father-daughter relationship and respondents rights thereunder), the daughter
is not the source
of respondents standing; instead it is their relationship that provides respondent his standing, which is clear once respondents interest is properly described.
2
The Courts criticisms of the Court of Appeals Article III standing decision and the prudential prohibition on third-party standing provide no basis for denying respondent
standing.

Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticketgood for this day onlyour doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations.

II

The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
4 U. S. C. §4.

As part of an overall effort to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America, see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7,
56Stat.
380, former
36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase under God in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7,
68Stat.
249. The amendments sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this countrys belief in God with the Soviet Unions embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107293, §§12,
116Stat.
20572060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, under God might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under Gods authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

The phrase under God in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nations leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religions role in our Nations history abound.

At George Washingtons first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come. The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? The President responded, I solemnly swear, and repeated the oath, adding, So help me God. He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him. M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 17001800, pp. 7374 (1987).

Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress,
3
Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.  4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nations history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase under God:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vainthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomand that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

Lincolns equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Id.,
at 443.

Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. 2
id.,
at 132.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come! 2
id.,
at 242.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his Order of the Day to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Daythe day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in Francewith these words: Good Luck! And
let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking, http://www.eisenhower.
archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Courts case file).

The motto In God We Trust first appeared on the countrys coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be In God We Trust. Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795,
70Stat.
732.

Our Court Marshals opening proclamation concludes with the words  God save the United States and this honorable Court.  The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nations religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase under God in the Pledge: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem The Star-Spangled Banner, adopted as such by Congress in 1931.
36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: In God is our trust.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to conduc[t] … appropriate patriotic exercises at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that [e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day. App. 149150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed.
v.
Barnette,
319 U. S. 624,
642 (1943)
(holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment because it impermissibly coerces a religious act.
Newdow
v.
United States Congress,
328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in
Lee
v.
Weisman
,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
. That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as an explicit religious exercise,
id.,
at 598, and a formal religious exercise,
id.
, at 589.

As the Court notes in its opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.
Ante,
at 2.

I do not believe that the phrase under God in the Pledge converts its recital into a religious exercise of the sort described in
Lee
. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase under God is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
4

There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase under God, but with the phrase with liberty and justice for all. But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase under God somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the
First Amendment can respondents claim succeed, where one based on objections to with liberty and justice for all fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase under God cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular governmentthe national, the state, and the localcollaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of hecklers veto over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase under God, is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

Notes

1
I note that respondent contends that he has never been a noncustodial parent and points out that under the state courts most recent order he enjoys joint legal custody. Brief for Respondent Newdow 40.

2
Also as properly described, it is clear that this is not the same as a next-friend suit. The Court relies on the fact that respondent [was] deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend. Ante, at 14. The same Superior Court that determined that respondent could not sue as next friend stated:
 To the extent that by not naming her you have … an individual right as a parent to say that, not only for all the children of the world but inmine in particular, I believe that this childmy child is being harmed, but the child is … not actually part of the suit, I dont know that theres any way that this court could preclude that.  App. to Brief for Respondent Newdow B4.
The California court did not reject Newdows right as distinct from his daughters, and we should not either.

3
The day after the
First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.  Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U. S. 668,
675, n.
2 (1984)
.

4
Justice Thomas concludes, based partly on West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U. S. 624 (1943)
, that Lee v. Weisman,
505 U. S. 577 (1992)
, coercion is present in the School District policy. Post, at 35 (opinion concurring in judgment). I cannot agree. Barnette involved a board of education policy that compelled students to recite the Pledge. 319 U. S., at 629. There was no opportunity to opt out, as there is in the present case. Failure to conform [was] insubordination dealt with by expulsion. Readmission [was] denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child [was] unlawfully absent and [could] be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians [were] liable to prosecution, and if convicted [were] subject to a fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days. Ibid. (footnotes omitted). I think there is a clear difference between compulsion (Barnette) and coercion (Lee). Compulsion, after Barnette, is not permissible, and it is not an issue in this case. And whatever the virtues and vices of Lee, the Court was concerned only with formal religious exercise[s], 505 U. S., at 589, which the Pledge is not.